Religion can make you a better person?

Research by the Nottingham University Business School suggests that it can increase trust and generosity – but only towards people of your own
faith. The research also suggests that having a religion doesn't increase discrimination towards people outside your group, unless you are a
fundamentalist.

The two most interesting things about this study are that it was conducted by economists, and that they used Malaysian students for their guinea
pigs, rather than the more usual Anglo-Saxon students chosen in most studies of this sort.

The participants were paired off to play repeated rounds of prisoners' dilemma games, a standard method of measuring generosity and trust. When no one
had any clue as to the identity of their opponents, they co-operated at almost exactly the same rate as when they knew that their opponents were of a
different ethnicity or religion. There was a marked and significant rise in co-operation and trust when either ethnicity or religion were shared
between players, though this was not additive: the two together were not stronger than one or other on its own, and religion was slightly stronger
than ethnicity.

There were two other effects worthy of note. Religiosity – ie commitment to a belief system – did not increase altruism towards outgroup members.
Fundamentalism, a separate quality measured by such things as literal belief in the scriptures, did have a small but statistically significant effect
in raising the level of discrimination against outgroup members.

So the research suggests that on the one hand, religious groups don't actively harm non religious people (although they will tend to favour their own
co-religionists).

On the other hand, when dealing with fundamentalists, for instance people who take a literal belief in the scriptures, then such groups can cause
harm, perhaps a great deal of harm, to people outside the group.

In other words, religion is neither harmful nor beneficial to non-religious people unless religious people take it too seriously?

It's just a pity that its often the people with the strongest belief, the fundamentalists, that manage to dominate religious movements.

Star and Flag, olln!
I saw this article early this morning, and thought about posting a thread on it. Glad you did so!!

I agree completely. "Outsiders" are not treated the way "fundamentalists" treat each other. They are exclusive, and arrogant, and laboring under
false premises. In my opinion, many of them miss the mark entirely. Due to inadequate education in liberal arts, humanities, and Western
Civilization (the study of how our culture came to be).

I think it's VERY dangerous that American colleges and universities are going to drop those profound, broad-based classes that are CRITICAL for
people to be truly aware of what's going on. Music, poetry, philosophy, art, and literature MUST BE INCLUDED in an education.

Research by the Nottingham University Business School suggests that it can increase trust and generosity – but only towards people of your own
faith. The research also suggests that having a religion doesn't increase discrimination towards people outside your group, unless you are a
fundamentalist.

The two most interesting things about this study are that it was conducted by economists, and that they used Malaysian students for their guinea
pigs, rather than the more usual Anglo-Saxon students chosen in most studies of this sort.

The participants were paired off to play repeated rounds of prisoners' dilemma games, a standard method of measuring generosity and trust. When no
one had any clue as to the identity of their opponents, they co-operated at almost exactly the same rate as when they knew that their opponents were
of a different ethnicity or religion. There was a marked and significant rise in co-operation and trust when either ethnicity or religion were shared
between players, though this was not additive: the two together were not stronger than one or other on its own, and religion was slightly stronger
than ethnicity.

There were two other effects worthy of note. Religiosity – ie commitment to a belief system – did not increase altruism towards outgroup members.
Fundamentalism, a separate quality measured by such things as literal belief in the scriptures, did have a small but statistically significant effect
in raising the level of discrimination against outgroup members.

So the research suggests that on the one hand, religious groups don't actively harm non religious people (although they will tend to favour their own
co-religionists).

On the other hand, when dealing with fundamentalists, for instance people who take a literal belief in the scriptures, then such groups can cause
harm, perhaps a great deal of harm, to people outside the group.

In other words, religion is neither harmful nor beneficial to non-religious people unless religious people take it too seriously?

It's just a pity that its often the people with the strongest belief, the fundamentalists, that manage to dominate religious movements.

edit on 6-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

So does your OP imply a group think phenomena that is intrinsic to religious group? I can see this...

Personally, I have a problem with those that treat members of their own faith with favor and I question the integrity of their faith especially if we
are talking about Abrahamic religions as I consider my theology and philosophy an off branch.

So does your OP imply a group think phenomena that is intrinsic to religious group? I can see this...

Personally, I have a problem with those that treat members of their own faith with favor and I question the integrity of their faith especially if we
are talking about Abrahamic religions as I consider my theology and philosophy an off branch.

Group think is a very real aspect of religion. It could be argued that the group think is the religion itself, or at least the dominant group's
interpretation of it.

And I don't like the term "fundamentalist", that's just someone who appreciates the fundamental/original tenants of the faith. "Radical" would
be a better term to use to describe the person mentioned above.

I think its the same for any group and not just limited to religion. Even a group of radical atheist can be equally damaging. A country established on
atheistic principles can as likely enforce their view.
They basically just researched human nature.

Depends on what the religion is. If it's based on total submission to Chist's will and commandments, then yes it will make you better person,
provided that people are not highjacking his teachings and making them say other than what he taught. However the problem is, humans are not perfect
and no matter how hard you try, you will F it up at some point. Sometimes the journey is just as important as the destination.

No you dont, because whatever faith, religion: Christian Scientist, Jehovah Witness, Lutheran, Calvanist, Babtist, Seventh Day Adventist, Anglican
Episcopal, Methodist and you do not believe in Catholic Church doctrines I will tell you this; (if you wanted to abide by this faith system) the only
thing to be done is: YOU must relinquish your soul and get your ass into the confessional otherwise you are not praying to God. ONLY the Priest can do
this for you as your INTERPRETER (thereby knowing your name #of Hail Mary's to be prayed to/by your FINGERS on the Roseary).. Blackmail. If you Bypass
Go on the monopoly board 200.00 bucks skipping the outrageous notions of the RC I'd say, if you can find one, go and buy the cola and drink a toast.
If you believed any doctrine falacious or True, a present to yourself would be a ponyride carnival style and a box of CrackerJacks (prize inside).
Those Catholics are VERY TRICKY. Watch out.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.